The Status Monkey-Wrench

Another thing we need to remember when considering limited editions is that status and prestige are very important in some markets and certain outlets. If, as Joe and Ken say in the comments, all galleries simply insist on limited editions, well, then, that's that. Image is everything in art; many galleries, I'm sure, would regard a high-volume, low-cost sale like one of TOP's with some low-emotion subvariant of horror.

As you know if you've ever frequented the best galleries in the world's largest cities, a good gallerista can take in at a glance whether you're the sort of person they want buying their art. I recall one trip back in the go-go '80s to a high-end New York gallery where I was approached by an astonishing creature. She was ravishingly beautiful, slender as a stiletto, dressed entirely in spotless black, with high heels that could hurt you, a face that could grace billboards, and a haircut most Americans couldn't afford. Despite the fact that I fairly radiate frumpy Midwestern stylelessness, she came up to me and told me my face looked familiar. To my astonishment, she turned out to be one of the former students from the school where I'd taught—a girl who, in high school, had been more than a bit plump and had favored a sort of English-eccentric fashion sense—floral print skirts and headbands and bright red lipstick, that sort of thing. We had a nice conversation, during which I was nonetheless not able to get over her startling conversion from cuddly duckling to black swan.

No such luck at Mary Boone midtown, where I swear the willowy bored gallery fauna could tell I wasn't a customer prospect using only her peripheral vision. Without even looking straight at me she could tell I was not worth talking to.

Probably the funniest story I have about being too uncool to talk to—I'm sure I've told this before—was when Jim Hughes, whose writings now occasionally grace this site, had written an article for the magazine about Richard Avedon. We wanted to illustrate the article with an Avedon picture, and of course we had to get permission. So I called Avedon's studio, and was transferred in due course to his third assistant. The negotiations were fairly intricate, and lasted over several phone calls. During the last one, Avedon himself was in the room at the other end of the line—but he still wouldn't talk to me directly. I'd ask the third assistant a question, the third assistant would repeat it to Avedon, Avedon would answer, and the third assistant would relay the answer to me. Back and forth, back and forth. As the editor of a little podunk photo magazine from Chicago, I was just not cool enough for Avedon to talk to directly—such things weren't done.

Anyway, I think I've thought of one way how I might price my prints if I ever got the opportunity to sell any at a gallery. First five prints, $650 each. Numbers 6–10, $1,800 each. Prints 11–15, $4,000 each. Prints 16–20, $10,000 each. Prints 21–25, $16,000 each. So I'd say the edition was limited to 25. Price: "Up to $16,000."

And then I'd make five prints.

Mike

P.S. In case you're curious about the outcome with Avedon, we were allowed to reproduce a photograph, provided we a) scan it from a book and b) not attempt to pay him anything for it. The reason for a.: he did not want to send us a repro print which we could then fail to return and sell for a profit; the reason for b.: we couldn't afford to pay what it was worth, and anything we could afford to pay would be an insult that would demean the worth of the picture. The reasons are my interpretation—they weren't made explicit by the third assistant—but I'm pretty sure I'm right.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Janne: "I've long been thinking that prints should be valued and sold using the same progression as half-stops, without any explicit limit. So, the very first print—that the photog keeps, perhaps—would be 100 (in dollars, euros or 100s of yen). The second print would be 120. The third, 140, Fourth, 180. then 200, 240, 280 and so on. The prints would definitely be limited, but without the photographer having to decide on a limit. Instead, the market would decide exactly what a given image would be worth to print. You'd also reward early buyers—friends and acquaintances, and people who 'discover' you early on—as they'd be able to buy a print for far less than a later buyer. And you can always, with no exception, accommodate the possible (and for most of us, illusory) 'I just must have this' buyer; the price for the next print is fixed before they even walk in the door."

Mike replies: I love your f-stop scheme, but then, I would.

Two things to remember about graduated pricing schemes: first, they add a not-inconsiderable extra layer of bookkeeping complexity—I could never do it for one of our sales, for instance, without getting someone to write a program for me—and second, they merely replicate, in an artificical way, what happens naturally in the market as the demand for scarce things rises and/or as scarcity increases.

Featured Comment by John Camp: "You know how to get attention in any gallery? Be an older guy, accompanied by a pretty, much younger woman. They won't leave you alone."

Featured Comment by Ken Tanaka: "Funny (not) how an experience like getting snubbed at a gallery can so deeply tattoo one's mind. But consider the other side of the coin. There are plenty of folks who would welcome being ignored when they walk into a gallery. Not public celebrities, mind you. But prominent collectors and museum curators who often get spotted, and then get managed, as soon as they enter big-time galleries. Even when they just want to browse casually. Then, of course, there's yet a third side of the coin; the visitor who gets the cold shoulder but who turns out to be a big name. I know of at least two such stories, both hilarious, that have occurred in NY galleries. These days ya never know. Although I am not a gallery hopper it's been my limited experience that galleries these days tend to welcome nearly everyone with respect and grace. They cannot afford not to do so."

Mike replies: You're right, Ken—I've had many good experiences in galleries, too. I was just talking about Kathleen Ewing a little while ago, in the post about the AIPAD show. Kathleen was really extremely indulgent of me at her gallery in D.C. when I was a student—generously allowing me access to work not on display when she knew full well I wasn't a prospective buyer.

And, really, we have to realize that people are in business to make sales, and part of smart selling is not to waste time selling to people who aren't legitimate prospects. (Kathleen would just turn me loose and then go do her work—she didn't spend any time trying to sell me on anything. She'd chat when she had time, but she had her priorities straight at all times.)

And finally, some people are just not pleasant people. The most recent bad experience I had with a rude employee was at my vet's, where everyone else is as nice as can be. And that's not snobbishness at all—it's just one employee who either rubs me the wrong way, or who I rub the wrong way, or who is just rude—I'm not quite sure which.

Featured Comment by Chris: "You wrote, 'And then I'd make five prints.'

"Then it would be limited, but not an edition.

"I haven't read all the comments on this edition rigamarole, but as you certainly know, it is only an edition if you actually make all the prints at the same time, to the same standard. Which is why Vestal always pointed out that 'limited' editions usually guaranteed a photo print was more common than most non-edtitioned prints.

"In theory, one could do it your way in the digital era and expect to get identical output, but in practice, it doesn't really work. And besides, then the earlier prints in the edition would age differently than the later ones....

"I like the idea of progressive pricing, but let's not beat around the bush: limited edition either means something, and you make an actual edition of limited run, or it doesn't, and you don't need to.

"I would be much more amenable to editioning in digital photo prints if it were clear that what was limited was the particular print size and treatment, not the eternal use of that 'negative' as a starting point for making prints. If this were the case, then limited editions would finally contribute something to the art of the print (as opposed to merely the economics)—it would make clear the variety and progression of the photographer's thinking and skills in relation to a particular image."

Featured Comment by matthew langley: "When I was at the Corcoran my friend Chris and I worked for Nancy Drysdale Gallery—Jonathon Borofsky was installing his show at the same time that Avedon was installing his (Photos From the American West)—so the Corcoran reached out to Borofsky's local gallery (Nancy Drysdale Gallery) for install help. It was a great experience. Especially interesting was lunchtime when we are all sprawled on the ground with sandwiches and drinks—just talking—the show originated from Philadelphia and at the time the main installation guy was a biker named "Blues" McCaw. He and Borofsky got along in an almost non-verbal like conversation.

"Meanwhile across the room...

"There is Avedon having lunch with his 'team.' Avedon is on one of the couches and his assistants are in the neatest semi-circle on the floor around him—just looking up the whole time, while his food is on a small table brought in for him.

"So did he just not want to talk to you? I think you might just be on the money on that one."

Featured Comment #2 by John Camp: "When I was a newspaper columnist, I wrote what all newspaper columnists write about, i.e., the daily b.s. of life. However, once a month I wrote about art, because it was my main interest in life, and I just wanted to do it, even if general readers weren't particularly interested. On a couple of occasions, in trying to interview somebody with a show at the Walker Gallery in Minneapolis, I was told by an assistant (off-the-record) that the famous man wouldn't talk directly to me because he was afraid I'd quote him, and that he'd had a bad experience with quotes. In other words, if he spoke to somebody in the press, he wanted a very controlled situation with ground rules. Later, when I was selling a lot of books, and was often interviewed myself, I found that many interviewers from newspapers, small magazines and blogs have a very loose grip on accuracy, and was once told by a blogger that he'd quoted me very incorrectly because he'd confused my interview with an interview with another writer—he was writing out the quotes from memory, rather than from notes. A couple of experiences like that can make you very wary. So it's at least possible that Avedon simply didn't want to make it possible for you to quote him...and nobody's really much interested in reading quotes from a third assistant. I have found that you can get much more accurate reporting if you actually sit down and talk to a reporter, if you're friendly and open, and create a kind of relationship—if they feel that friendliness, they'll work harder to be accurate, and are less likely to write something weird to make their story more interesting. But phoners (as they're called) can make you very nervous. Especially when you get the feeling that they want something 'good.'"

Mike replies: Good point, John. It's certainly quite possible that Avedon's procedure had nothing to do with me or my status, but was just his usual protocol for whatever reason, which might well have made sense.

Featured Comment #2 by matthew langley: "One last thing—I've been blown off by the assistant at my own gallery (in Chelsea). This is actually not too uncommon, especially with newish assistants.

"One last story (sorry I'm so talky today)—

"Frank Stella was at Leo Castelli in the Sixties (he showed there—but I mean he was there looking at the art) and he approached the assistant to inquire bout a price. Understand that Stella was never much of a dresser—but during this time he was bad—old raincoat and funky hat—completely unfashionable (early 'seventies). So the gallery assistant plays a bit coy and the next thing you know Castelli comes out for something else and recognizes one of his artists and of course gives him everything he needs and Stella evidently ends up buying the artwork.

"So don't feel bad. It happens to nobodies like me and to somebodies like Frank Stella.

"I think of it as the artifice of the art world."

Comments

[KeithB]

Just what is an "edition"?

Is it a particular size? A particular crop?All printed in a particular time frame? Any print of that negative?

If I print a "limited edition" of 8x10's can I then print a zillion 5x7's?

[Mike Johnston]

KeithB,
An edition is a promise, wouldn't you say? It's a promise that you won't flood the market with more prints than you say you will. As with any sort of promise, people can fudge, people can lie, or people can be upright and tell the truth and play it by the book.

Mike

[k4kafka]

Don't feel bad,Mike. Avedon was probably busy doing something he felt was more important than answering your questions on the phone.

[Jeff]

Edward Weston marked various prints as if part of an edition, say 1/50, but then rarely sold more than a few. I think Pepper #30, perhaps his most often printed image, was printed by him about 12-15 times. Times they are a-changin'...or not.

[Mike Johnston]

"Avedon was probably busy doing something he felt was more important"

No, I'm pretty sure he was just sitting there talking to me through his intermediary.

Mike

[Paul Macdonald]

Wouldn't $1600 for the second print make more sense? I think I must be avoiding things I need to be doing.

[Bob Rosinsky]

It's really fun getting snubbed at art galleries in Tampa, Fla. Same situation, beautiful young women clad in black in stilleto heels. I radiate uncool and scowl at the expensive artwork on the walls. I usually attempt to engage the smartly coiffed ladies in conversation. They typically spend about 20 seconds with me before wandering off. I am pegged as pariah from Poughkeepsie even though my native town is Omaha.

[Paul Macdonald]

I should have said $1600 for the second set of prints.

[russell]

Escalating price structure: http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/store/price-structure.php

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Ansel Adams has had gallery representation at various times. And generally did not limit his print editions. Therefore there exist reputable galleries that will deal with open-edition prints.

Of course, if one is not Ansel Adams, one may find different rules at galleries. If the two galleries that will talk to you at all both insist on limited editions from you, well, there you are.

Say, are there any good galleries selling photos in Minneapolis? I could go look and see if they have people who can recognize from their peripheral vision that I'm not worth talking to. (Seriously, I'm interested in who is selling what in Minneapolis. Where do I go to find out?)

[Martino]

"First five prints, $650 each. Numbers 6–10, $1,800 each. Prints 11–15, $4,000 each. Prints 16–20, $10,000 each. Prints 21–25, $16,000 each. So I'd say the edition was limited to 25. Price: "Up to $16,000."

Roooight, that's how there are bubbles in asset markets then?

[Harriet Rubin]

Mike, what you describe occurs not just in the world of fine art, of course. A book author who had a million-copy non-fiction bestseller for his first try was terribly unhappy. "I meant to write a book that was read by only three people, but the right three," he whined to me, his editor, shattering my exuberance at this lucky, lucrative outcome. From his considerable experience of how the world worked, those three elite readers would distrust anything popular. The widespread dogma of elitism surprises me constantly. There is a cool coffee roaster in my laid-back town, but the baristas let me know it is entirely beneath them to pour coffee for a round-heel wearing fleece. Even after all these years, I don't know which is the best audience to aim for: the many or the few.

[richard]

It seems to me that the print sales from TOP differ from the "deep pocket" and "black polo neck" gallerista sort of acquisitions. Much as we'd all like to cash in on this, it must be hugely rewarding to the artists selling through TOP - peer approval, by photographers, for photographers. And I think the purchasers know the sort of value that they are buying into.

[Speed]

The "willowy bored gallery fauna" know that comfortably dressed people from the midwest are too smart to pay gallery prices for crappy art.

[Paul Van]

I guess when you are a *star* you can get away with that kind of behavior. lol

By comparision, in the audiophile world, it is usually fairly easy to have personal contact with owner/engineer.

[Carl L]

With a limited edition printing -- might it make more sense to make the 25th print (or what ever) the $1,000 print and the #1
print the $25,000 print. To me the first print would be worth more then the last print. Also for the first 5 the price would be determined by the demand of the sale of the other prints.
If the demand was really that great why limit your last prints to a set price.

[Dennis Ng]

@Jeff: Only 12-15 for that picture of Weston! Really? No, I am not challenge you, Jeff. I just wonder. It is contact print and using a lamp. I guess not much burn-and-dodge can be done and would be done at all. It shall be easy to print quite a bit.

[Account Deleted]

Mike, there was something inherently wrong with Avedon's communication scenario. He should have talked to his first assistant, then the first assistant to the second assistant, the second assistant to the third assistant, and then only the third assistant could say something to you. And vice versa. Damn! Those people don't know a thing about order!

Greg

[Ed]

The question remains, did you get permission or not Mike? Personally I don't think it's some kind of arrogance on Avedon's part, more like a "what else am I paying my third assistant for?" kind off thing. Personally I'm not to fond of the photographer assistant relation. To me photography is a one person no contact sport, more like darts than like golf, so I could not use an assistant, since why would I employ another potential to mess up a perfect shoot if/when I can do that quite well on my own.

Greetings, Ed

[luigi sellitto]

a famous man is not necessarily a great man

[Jack M.]

I remember my first trip to New York and I had a list of galleries to visit so that I could see actual prints from some of my favorite photographers—instead of book reproductions. I don't think anyone in any gallery spoke to me. And the best was Jay Maisel's gallery, where there was no one not to speak to me, just an empty white room on an upper floor full of his wonderful dye transfer prints.

[Paul W. Luscher]

Guess it's why I've never been interested in being part of the "art world." Too much phoniness and snobishness.

Have a friend who's an artist, and he asked me to shoot a reception for one of his shows, and I must say the pretentiousness was so thick you could cut it with a knife.

I guess the idea of a lot of folk who are into the "art scene" is that it's a way of showing you are superior to the lumpen-populace, because you are more sensitive, aware, intellectual, hip, etc, etc.

Like you, I'll just stay me and be unstylish and unhip. All that kind of posing is too much work for me.

[Paulo Mendes]

I have another suggestion for an escalating price structure: use the f:scale (1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, ...) as a multiplier factor.
On the 3rd picture the price is already twice the base price, and if you sold 15 you would get 181x base price.

Now that's photo-artistic pricing!...

Oh! and I would always make a limited edition of 32 (f:32768).

[Bill Rogers]

I recommend this book: "The $12 Million Stuffed Shark - The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art" by Don Thompson.

[Will Frostmill]

The Avedeon story really makes me wonder if the reason he had so many assistants was because he really wasn't any good at dealing with real people.* Sort of puts him on the 'distancing and observing' end of the photographic spectrum. Sure, his 'process'** needed lots of people assisting to work, but this makes me wonder if he chose that method of working because he couldn't make other methods work. In any case, wow, that kind of status signaling is pretty astonishing.

Will

*pretty common problem among art majors. Sometimes it's very hard to have a real conversation with someone who's life is optimized for dealing with images.
**from what I've picked up. I'm not an expert.

[Evan]

I always want to stick it to the folks who dismiss me as not a sales prospect - make them know they screwed up and misread me - but unfortunately they didn't, and I can't afford any of it.

Though I will say that there's an excellent store in St Paul called Willy's American Guitars - I used to go there as an obviously broke college kid, and they would thrust $5000-10,000 guitars into my hands, and let me sit and play them for as long as I wanted... They have since gotten several purchases from me, in large part because of this attitude (as well as their excellent selection and knowledge). In contrast, there's a guitar store here in Madison which I won't go to because every instrument in the place has a little sign on it saying not to touch without permission. I don't plan as a grown man to ask permission to shop for your product.

So some people get it.

[David Bostedo]

KeithB - I have seen several internet forum conversations (in the nature photography area) on limited edition prints, and a lot of them have talked about editions being based on a particular size. So they may have a limit of 100 20x30's, AND 100 5x7's, etc. A lot of times this is so they can sell some large "art" prints, and still sell the image for things like greeting cards.

Seems to me from seeing this talk, that most of the finagling is because they don't really want to do limited editions, but feel that people pay more, or will buy more, if they do. So they think that, even if they only sell 5 copies, they'll get more money if they say that it's 5 out of 100, than if it's an open edition.

I have no clue whether or not this is true.

[Jim Bullard]

Mike, The irony of your proposed price structure is that for resale purposes the lower numbered ones are generally worth more. Your pricing favors the early buyer over you.

[Dave Levingston]

I occasionally show my photos in galleries...not in NYC, of course...I'm from the mid-west too. I had a print in a group show in Detroit a couple years ago. During the opening the gallery owner introduced me to one of her regular buyers. We had a conversation that eventually came around to limited editions. When I started to explain that I didn't do limited editions because I feel they are counter to the nature of the medium of photography the buyer turned her back to me in mid-sentence and walked away. I decided she really wasn't someone I wanted owning any of my prints.

[QT Luong]

It's a given that work sold in galleries is in limited editions. Just check for yourself the blog by collectors DLK who are reporting from hundreds of shows each year. By the way, besides being a source of seldom-disclosed economics, that blog provides some of the most informed commentary on photography on the web.

What's more interesting is to look at the photographers who are selling their prints through their stores (I use this term to differentiate their galleries from curated galleries - no disrespect, it does really take commitment). They had the choice. As far as I know, the most successful all chose to do limited editions.

[Jack Nelson]

The increasing price structure is just proof of how artificial prices are in the art world. Where else would things get more expensive as they become less rare? Of course, that's not what's happening; it's an incentive to buy the print and buy it now while the price is close to what the print is actually worth, and yes, I doubt anybody who is using this pricing ever sells anything at the level 2 prices.

[Jamie Pillers]

Mike,
Quite a few years ago, I bought a local Bay Area photographer's print from a gallery here. His pricing scheme was: first 5 prints, $500. Then for each subsequent five prints, the price went up another $500. Certainly a great incentive for a buyer to make up their mind quickly.. otherwise face another $500 on the tab.

[Walter Glover]

""Avedon was probably busy doing something he felt was more important"

'No, I'm pretty sure he was just sitting there talking to me through his intermediary.'"

Which begs the question of just who was expected to be impressed - Mike or Uncle Dickie?

I have seen quite a few exhibitors who use a sliding scale based on volume similar to that which you suggest. And som refuse to ever sell #1 and/or the last number in the edition.

All part of the lure of packaging I guess. So, is the 'Art Market' really 'art' or just uncommissioned commercial photography.

[Mike Shimwell]

"I guess when you are a *star* you can get away with that kind of behavior. lol

By comparision, in the audiophile world, it is usually fairly easy to have personal contact with owner/engineer."

In my experience you can talk to people engaged in the product at companies like Zeiss or Rolls Royce (aero engines) as well. I suspect that many manufacturing firms are like that if you happen to get the right number and have the interest.

[MichaelG]

Then there's always a Richard Prince floating about... until... "here comes the law..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704425804576220671591028188.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_LifestyleArtEnt

...Yikes!

[Mike Johnston]

"The increasing price structure is just proof of how artificial prices are in the art world. Where else would things get more expensive as they become less rare?"

Jack,
No, I think you've got that backwards. Yes, they're becoming more common out in the world as more copies sell, but the supply is dwindling, and that's the salient point. When you reach the 25th print of an edition of 25, that's when the supply is lowest and the print is the rarest. The fact that there are 24 prints already out there isn't important, because those aren't available for purchase.

Mike

[Boglev]

I think Fibonacci numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number ) should be used - 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987 ..., where the first copy, with the value of 0 will stay with the author. Then, the 1 will get the value we want to start with. We talking photographs, don't we?

[Louis]

http://www.photoshelter.com/mkt/how-to-sell-prints

[ctein]

Dear Keith,

I don't make it a habit of doing limited editions (with the exceptions of the collaborations Laurie and I did: http://ctein.com/Collaboration_portfolio.htm ) but I've printed for enough clients that do that I have some modest familiarity with what's acceptable.

First, understand that there are legal issues involved here. When you offer something for sale and claim it's a limited edition of so many copies, you're making a representation to the potential buyer. Not honoring that representation is fraud. Enough famous and not-so-famous artists have played fast and loose that quite a few states have specific laws around this. I know both New York and California do; I believe Illinois does.

I am not familiar with what the laws require, so what I say about common practices may in fact be in violation of the law, which may be stricter. All taken with a grain of salt, okay?

Basic rule: put yourself in the buyer's shoes. It's accepted that an artist will do a small number of artist proofs in addition to the numbered series. Emphasis on the word SMALL– not just in absolute numbers but relative to the print run. Somewhere between one and five artist proof copies seems to be common… but if your entire numbered edition was only 10 prints, how happy do you think buyers would be to discover that there were another five signed prints in existence?

The general rule is that it's okay to do separate editions if there is a substantial change in size or media or appearance. In other words, you might sell signed and numbered dye transfer prints but unlimited numbers of signed chromogenic or digital prints (as Jim Marshall did). So far as size goes, changing the area by a factor of two appears to be safe. In other words, your 5x7 would not compete with your 8x10. Less than that? I think you're getting into a gray area there. You do not want to be in a gray area. That's where arises the potential for suits from unhappy buyers.

A different crop? Well, it better make the photograph look really different, not just be a refinement on what you did before. Again, think of it from the viewpoint of a buyer. Is it going to strike them as a substantially different work or is it just going to look like a runaround to dilute the run?

This is the common sense of it among reputable and serious professionals. Whether it is sufficient to satisfy consumer and fraud laws in a specific state? I don't know. Any attorneys out there with knowledge about this?

pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

[Robert Howell]

This post had me thinking of all the delightful terms used in hand pulled printing like Bon à Tirer, A.P. etc.
Cancellation Proof reminded me of a series of photos done with X's scored on the negatives before printing. It was some years ago. Do you remember who that was? They were actually quite good looking.

[Benjamin R. George]

The half-stop scheme is clever, but the exponential growth involved becomes daunting quickly when we're talking about something like a TOP print sale, or even a real hit image.

For example, if the first print sale copy of Canyon Reflections had sold for $10, and you'd gone by half-stop increments from there, i think the sticker price for the 86th copy would've been just under $25 million. (I might be off by half a stop one way or the other, but that wouldn't really change the dauntingness much). (Formula for cost of print n: 10 * 2^((n-1)/4) .)

If Adams had used the half-stop scheme for Hernandez, starting at $1, the sticker price for the 800th print would've been in excess of $10^60.

[Stan B.]

I always marveled how I was essentially invisible in NY photo galleries in the 80s & 90s- and so very visibly noticed in high end clothing stores, to the point of being followed.

[Stan B.]

Avedon actually sued a complete, no name band for reproducing one of his photos on their flyers posted on East Village light poles announcing their gig at a no name club. Even the 3rd assistant who saw it and told him, couldn't believe it.

PS- He died before it got to court.

[James]

"...a sort of English-eccentric fashion sense—floral print skirts and headbands ..."

Hey, some of us like that sort of thing, enough to marry the owner of such fashion sense....

[Pak-Ming Wan]

I'm really enjoying these articles on galleries and print rarity -- it goes a long way to explain the way I get treated in some of these galleries (as well as why as how photography as art is valued).

The question i would have then is, how would you value a new artist / photographer who has no reference point?

Pak

[Tom Kwas]

FWIW, I've never been given the 'gate' in San Francisco. Everyone seems happy to talk, even tho I look like I couldn't afford a roll of film, much less a photographic print. The Geary street galleries have all been nice to me, and I especially remember a young Asian man at Modern Book who couldn't have been more enthusiastic about talking at length regarding all the people they represented. It's interesting to me, because I do some business in San Francisco a few times a year, and altho I like the city, I've never found the people to be warm or friendly at all (gotta go to Petaluma for that!), but maybe the gallery salespeople are used to cyber-millionaires with big buck showing up in shorts, sandals, and hoodies!

[Eric Rose]

I always get lots of attention in galleries. I think they are worried I will steal something.

[Jim Becia]

I happen to be a fan of Roman Loranc's work. It started when I was in Yosemite about 8 years ago and the Ansel Adams Gallery had an exhibit of his work. The first print I viewed was an 8x10 of "Two Hearted Oak." I just loved it, but at $600 it was more that I really could justify. I continued around the exhibit and saw many others I liked but kept going back to "Two Hearted Oak." As I passed a glass case I noticed a book by Roman and I sign mentioning that you could get a limited edition book of his work and one of six photos for $400. I asked the sales person what were the choices for the print that came with the book. Long story short, one of them was "Two Hearted Oak." So the I figured it must me a nice 5x7 or some size close to that. Upon asking the sales person what was the size of the photo, he replied about 11x14 in size matted to 16x20. So my question to him was why is the 8x10 priced at $600 and the book with 11x14 priced at only $400. His comment was that the 8x10 was a smaller numbered edition. I kind of scratched my head and then plunked down my credit card and bought the book and "Two Hearted Oak" print that I now pass and enjoy every day. Roman also put out a second book and print set a few years ago and again, I bought myself another wonderful image. The whole editioning thing is a bit absurb as far as I am concerned.

As a side comment about "Moonrise over Hernandez," I remember researching this and I actually think the number that I recall was 1041 total images of that photo, although I have seen figures as high as 1300. I have always thought of limited editions in photography to absurd, but that is just my opinion.

[Zalman Stern]

The first time I heard of escalating price structures was when visiting Galen Rowell's Mountain Light gallery in Emeryville. (Since closed, though the Bishop gallery is still open carrying on the legacy of the Rowells.) His Rainbow Over The Potala Palace had become such a hit that it merited a very steep escalating structure where at the time a relatively small print was ~$16,000 or so and the next one sold after that was even more. His limited edition work does have an escalating scale depending on how many prints are left in the edition, though most of it seems unavailable now. Mountain Light does sell a fair number of unlimited edition works by Galen as well.

I've had good experiences with most San Francisco photography galleries. Usually they're polite to me until I mention I shoot digital rather than film and then they decide I'm not worth talking to :-)

-Z-